Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
Today’s shocking decision is a victory over Mr. Warman by Marc Lemire, webmaster of freeedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right, who was supported in his constitutional challenge of Section 13 by the legal team defended Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
[More]
Popularity: 19% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Cynapse Says:
A lot of neo-nazis and their hidden supporters happy today …
Let the hate flow!
(on the plus side, less chance of Jack or myself getting sued for failing to catch drive by idiots in the comment section)
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Jack Says:
Best decision I’ve seen in months. Now Harper should pull the section.
As you say…free speech may just have been restored.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Cynapse Says:
I’m all for not getting sued. We’ll see what the fallout is from the rabble rousers who will exploit the hell out of this in the name of frreeeedom. I’m thinking at least one beating death in the next couple years. Your thoughts, Jack?
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Jack Says:
“I’m thinking at least one beating death in the next couple years.”
Maybe but that’s the cost of freedom and more likely the death will be due to a marital dispute. It won’t have much to do with Nazi’s.
“Anyway”…this is not “settled science” yet. The eyes of the left will pop out on their cheeks and there will be court action like we have rarely seen in the days ahead as the “left” in this country goes nuts. I commend the judge for doing what is right. I would have ruled the same if I had thought of it.
Finally, it’s time to end the bullshit and save Canadians millions of dollars.
Lawyers will lose “big bucks”.
Bravo!
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
rob misek Says:
All this decision accomplished is to give freedom to hate precedence over freedom to be free from hate.
The “haters” are pulling the strings.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Jack Says:
Not hate precedence Rob — freedom to speak one’s mind. A true democracy should never be afraid to hear alternative points of view. In point of fact we should want to hear it so that we can respond, perhaps with rotten tomatoes.
This was a good decision.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Anna Keightley Says:
Well, why don’t you practice what you preach, eh? I’m quite sure my comment under the Pope’s thread was “poofed.” Thanks, gang.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
Great photograph Jack. Are some victims now perhaps entitled to refunds?
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
rob misek Says:
There are only two logical reasons to support this decision legalizing hatred.
1. You believe that freedom of speech depends on hatred.
2. You want the freedom to hate.
I don’t support either.
Disagreement isn’t hatred, lying is.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Pat Says:
Ranting hate filled nutcases will always be with us, just as they always have been and when they threaten people, they’ll get taken down. People speaking out against systematized hatred will be able to do so without fear of being bankrupted, ministers will be able to speak out against what they consider evil without being bankrupted and gagged. All in all it will be a better world for those that actually do value freedom.
For the left, that values above all else the benefit of the state to control the citizens in every way imaginable, like you said, their heads will explode.
Some of the best news I’ve heard in an already good day.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Mac Says:
Good news, indeed. Somehow, I have a feeling Jennifer Lynch won’t be cutting loose her mob anytime soon. Any bets on how much spinning she’ll be doing in the coming days?
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Mr.g Says:
Does that mean we can start calling people names again?
LOL!
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
John Luft Says:
“I’m thinking at least one beating death in the next couple years. ” What a stupid comment.
Not sure how many “beating deaths” there will be (if any) but I can assure you of one thing. It will certainly never come anywhere near the number of deaths it has taken to preserve freedom of speech.
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Mac Says:
When did you stop, Mr.g?
Posted on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Cynapse Says:
What’s stupid, Luft, is you thinking that allowing any kind of hateful speech won’t inevitably result in some yahoo taking his gun to purify the land of ___(whatever was pissing him off)___. Are you aware that hate radio was a large factor in the rousing the Hutus to slaughter the Watusi in Rwanda? Hajj Amin Al Husseini was indispensible to the Germans as a suave propagandist during WW2, again using his freedom of speech to spread lies about Ashkenaz.
Of you probably don’t mind that kind of speech, as neither do many of these so-called “freedom” advocates. But if NAMBLA (Google it, I’m not linking to them) were to use these black letter freedoms I bet you wouldn’t be so supportive, would you?
Conclusion: Freedom as a concept is inherently selective and those pushing for it are really looking for permission to gain more power
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Pat Says:
Yep, I’ve got to agree with you Cynapse, being able to speak your mind will probably result in a person being beat to death.. but on the other side of the coin there is the reality that A: The person needed killing B: There will be many people saved from a hideous reality by virtue of the fact that this information freely flows. There will probably also be someone killed because of their sports team affiliation too. What to do?
There’s always a price paid for freedom, usually at the expense of those who would wish to deny it.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Cynapse Says:
and at the expense of people who simply dare to be who they are. I didn’t know giving Marc Lemire carte blanche was worth any kind of expense but maybe I’m biased since folks like me “need killing” in his mind.
Given what’s appeared on some BT blogs while under the tyranny of the HRC, it’ll be interesting to see what comes up now and how we as a country will evolve. I have an idea, but don’t want to spoil the surprise
BTW, does this mean we’ll no longer be denying national entry to controversial Muslim scholars?
Again, these freedom-fighters will be taken seriously when they support NAMBLA or some other odious cause that DOESN’T fit into their agenda – otherwise this was just a power grab.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Frappeur Says:
Mr. Cynapse, you are correct to say that some nut case may be led to beat and even murder someone after being influenced by some hateful web site.
The problem is not with the hateful speech which can be countered by logical argument but what happens to the person committing what is a criminal act.
Many people are opposed to abortion. I am sure all of them are equally opposed to the murder of abortionists. The legal system must deal severely with those who contravene the law by their actions.
There have been cases where homosexuals have been beaten up because of their sexual orientation. While some may object to the homosexual lifestyle and may say so there is no excuse for a criminal act. These criminals need to be put away from society for a long time.
I do not know the details of the events in Rwanda. I certainly hope those who committed the murders will be dealt with although from the little I have heard the legal system is not working very well. Maybe that is what should be looked into.
Most of the attempts to silence people over the world have been done by governments and even individuals who do not want to be criticized for hideous activities (I think of China using Falun Gong people as a source of spare body parts). . I think it is better to let the creepy individuals in their tin-foil hats have their say so the concerned people covering important causes can continue to speak out.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 am
John Luft Says:
As usual, Cynapse spews drivel and opinion around as if it were fact. The truth is that there are already provisions in the Criminal Code for “hate speech”. Nothing more is needed. Cynapse, you would have been a great candidate for the Volksgerichtshof.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Cynapse Says:
Luft, you are the king of drivel, so your accusations mean little. In this bile-riddled Luft cameo, you claim that nothing else is needed because there is “hate speech” on the books. What are the chances of it actually going to court, Luft? Is our court system so efficient that we run out of murder and assault crimes and thus have plenty of time to prosecute non-violent, low-profile crimes of speech?
You know this is not the case, which can only lead one to believe that you want the government to be toothless in combating hate. What remains to be known is why.
It’s always interesting how “freedom” boils down to the carte blanche to stockpile guns and spread hate. You really have to wonder what’s on the minds of these self-proclaimed patriots. It’s even more interesting you’d consider my a candidate for a nazi court, given who your folk hero was for this HRC ordeal.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
beentheredonethat Says:
Cynapse, you’re making it sound like Canada is awash in hate speech. I would suggest exactly the opposite in fact. Were we witnessing regular either individual or collective Kristallnacht or much lesser such events here in Canada the law would certainly be focusing more resources to address the problem. The fact of the matter is some people’s perception is not the Justice Department’s reality. I have absolutely no doubt that Canadian police are prosecuting hate crimes when they find them if they have the evidence to do so. The Department of Justice will not prosecute any crime if they do not believe at the outset that they have a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction. The main reasons, well not enough evidence to convict could (horrors) mean that the suspect is innocent! Now that’s a novel assumption. Second, the personal cost both emotionally and financially a false trial would inflict on an possibly innocent person and lastly the unecessaary cost to the taxpayers. The HRC’s, under the firm belief that a mere lack of evidence was no reason not to prosecute somebody and subject them to emotional and financial hell implimented their own rules. They even set it up so that any requirement for ‘real’ evidence was a moot point. Most law abiding and freedom loving people would be aghast if their criminal courts boasted a 100% conviction rate. I can’t believe some people out there find the HRC’s 100% conviction rate and the dispicable methods they undertook to ensure that fact reassuring let alone a positive sign that Canadian’s freedoms are protected.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Cynapse Says:
btdt – Canada is not awash in such behaviour at the moment but we don’t know whether that’s due to a fear of the HRC. Now that its capacity has been severely diminshed, we’ll be able to see whether “hate speech” is in fact epidemic in Canada. No one can predict the future, though so far we know that the strongest proponents of free speech had no problem lionizing former Heritage Front leader Marc Lemire as some kind of Canadian hero – completely unaffected by his associations and the content of his message. One can infer that the type of speech these proponents plan to engage in won’t be simple criticism of the government or something else in the original spirit of freedom of speech (since that type of speech was never under HRC fire)
The only thing Warman did that seemed abhorrent was stealing internet from that woman who didn’t secure her network properly. True, it was her fault, but Warman could have easily gotten her hurt or killed if he said the wrong thing to the wrong person using her IP address. Extremists DO track access to their websites.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
True, it was her fault
Now I know damn well that you of all people didn’t mean that the way it sounded and because of that I chuckled…..sitting here all alone thinking up excuses not to clean up the house before the ‘real boss’ gets home from her business trip this evening. Here’s a chuckle back at ya. I’ve been retired for just over 7 years, ‘she’ has to work another probably 15 yrs. Ha….her bad for being born so late. Now where’d I leave the vacuum last month? LOL
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Cynapse Says:
Heh! No I meant not securing your network is silly business. Not only can lazy neighbours steal your connection, but pervs have been known to drive around with their laptops looking for open connections to download their illicit goods. The woman’s almost lucky Warman exploited her first, as he’ll be taken to task for it.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
I knew exactly what you meant….not to worry. I don’t know how to add one of those little yellow heads smiling and winking……so this will have to do..’click’.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
MaryT Says:
There has already been a beating death of a young native boy, by two 16 yr olds.
And a young man stopped another beating death of a 14 month old baby.
And those took place before this ruling.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm